Floor Statements

Mr. President, cancer is a disease that affects families of all backgrounds in all parts of the country. This year over 550,000 individuals will lose their life due to this terrible illness. While we must continue to pursue promising avenues of research that will hopefully lead to a cure, individuals can take a number steps to reduce their risk of acquiring cancer.

Research shows that proper nutrition, adequate physical activity, smoking cessation, and receiving timely screening procedures can all reduce cancer occurrences. Unfortunately, many Americans do not take this advice and many others are unaware of the steps they can to help prevent cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that nutritional factors and tobacco use contribute to approximately two-thirds of cancer deaths. In addition many individuals neglect early detection procedures. Only 50 percent of individuals receive the recommended screening for colon cancer, only 60 percent of men receive a timely prostate-specific antigen test, and 70 percent of women receive recommended mammographies.

Today I submitted a resolution to declare February 2004 as National Cancer Prevention Month. It is my hope that communities across the country will take this opportunity to educate one another on the steps they can take to prevent cancer.

Madam President, on behalf of colleagues on this side of the aisle, I am compelled to object, and I do object.

Madam President, I thank our distinguished chairman, Senator McCain, for getting this bill to the floor. Actually, we started 4 years ago under the leadership of Senator Wyden. In the last Congress, we had a bill reported from the committee but we could not get it up. We have learned lessons now from the Do Not Call effort, where we had to forgo committee and floor procedures to finally get it up. In this sense, I thank Senator McCain for getting this bill to the floor for its consideration, as well as Senator Wyden and Senator Burns for their leadership, and particularly my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer. He has a very important amendment. He has been driving forward for the expedition of this particular procedure, where the Federal Trade Commission is given some 6 months, although I think it can be done in a much shorter period.

We will be riding herd on the Federal Trade Commission to see if we can congeal that time, get that list ready, and report it to the committee so we can act. Other than that, if there is a need for a Do Not Call list, there certainly is a need for a Do Not Spam list.

I again thank Senator Burns, Senator Dayton, and Senator Schumer for their particular amendment and efforts on this case, and particularly my colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership over the past 4 years. It is under his drive that we have gotten it here.

Mr. President, I oppose this appropriation because we refuse to pay for it. Foreseeing our venture into Iraq, in early January I introduced a value added tax to pay for it. On this current bill I was a strong supporter of the Biden amendment. In fact, I negotiated the rewording to require that we forego the tax cut for the top one percent of income tax payers and use that money to pay for this appropriation. Led by the Republican opposition, it was voted down.

Ambassador Bremer testified that by next July oil from Iraq would be flowing at the rate of three million barrels a day, a net export revenue of $16 billion a year and a 10-year net export revenue of $160 billion. Iraq is not Afghanistan. With the second highest oil reserves in the world Iraq is one of the richest countries and could easily pay the bill. Again with White House opposition, the collateralization of this $20.3 billion cost was voted down.

This bill includes many items not just to rebuild, but to build facilities that did not exist at the time of war. While we are denying many facilities and services for our people here in the United States, we are going to the extreme financially to correct the mistake of President Bush. I supported the Stabenow amendment for our facilities and services which also was defeated by the White House.

The attempt to equate 9/11 with Saddam fails. Al-Qaida was not operating from Iraq. Saddam was not a threat to our national security. We had overflights in both northern and southern Iraq. We knew what was going on. We had economic sanctions on Iraq. The resolution I voted for had two resolution clauses: One, to enforce the United Nations resolutions and, two, to protect the national security of the United States. Saddam was not a threat to our national security and we all know it. The United Nations at the time was in Iraq on a search for weapons of mass destruction. We preempted the search with invasion. I don't know whether it was oil or finishing the unfinished business of Desert Storm, but be that as it may, they have not met us with rejoicing in the streets. Saddam still exists. There is a daily killing of our soldiers.

At this moment we are an occupation army and the enemy. While we try to internationalize our effort, there is no question that terrorism has been internationalized in Iraq. The borders are porous and deployment for law and order is inadequate. I call Iraq a mistake because we have more terrorism since our invasion rather than less. As reported in the Financial Times: ``The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said in its newly published Military Balance survey that while the invasion of Iraq might have isolated al-Qaida from potential state sponsors, it was also likely to have had the effect of `swelling its ranks and galvanizing its will.' War in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al-Qaida's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operational capability, the report states.''

You can't stop the killing until you have law and order. The twelfth Roman Canon still applies: Salus popli sumprema lex--the safety of people is the supreme law. In order to get safety, in order to get law and order we need more troops. The administration's approach is to regenerate the wetlands, build a sewer system, put in internet, make the people happy and then they will stop killing us. It could happen, but first you have to establish the people's security and we are trying to do it on the cheap with troops.

As I have told Secretary Rumsfeld on two occasions, more than a money supplemental we need a manpower supplemental. If our troops are sent to secure, there are too few and if they are sent to be killed daily, there are too many. The cheer to support the President and support the troops by proponents of this supplemental misleads. The cheer should be to stop the killing of our troops by supplying more manpower. My vote supports the troops by emphasizing the need for more manpower. But more particularly, it emphasizes the reality of our situation.

Money will not stop the daily killings, nor will a constitution by December. With the passage of this appropriation we are not only trying to do it on the cheap. We are telling the GI in downtown Baghdad, ``We hope you don't get killed. And the reason we hope you don't get killed is that we want you to hurry home to pay for it. My generation is not going to pay for it. This Congress is not going to pay for it because we need a tax cut to get re-elected next year.''

Mr. President, there is no question that I, along with every Member of this body, support the troops. But with respect to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, the majority ought to be ashamed for wasting the Senate's time with this political booby trap.

The amendment states that Saddam was a threat to our national security. He was not. We had him contained in the north and the south with overflights, and had the weapons inspectors

back in doing their work in Iraq. The amendment states that the United States pursued sustained diplomatic, political, and economic efforts to remove the so-called threat peacefully. That is wrong. We said to the United Nations, ``Get out of the way. You're irrelevant.'' We said to the international community, ``You're either with us or against us.'' Before we removed Saddam, we removed Hans Blix. The amendment says we eliminated terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just read the morning paper and you will know that is not true. They have plenty of terrorist infrastructure, and they are killing our soldiers every day.

As I have said many times before, the majority is only interested in the needs of the campaign, not the needs of the country. We have serious work to do, and they are playing political games. If we really supported our troops, we would pay for this war. Instead, we are telling our troops that they not only have to fight the war, they have to come home and pay for it, too.

Mr. President, some 40 years ago while investigating a case near the intersection of US 15 and State Highway 26, up a dirt road, there were located four shacks. One was the home of Ms. Elizabeth Gibson. I asked her if she had ever heard of Althea Gibson. She pointed to the shack and said she was born right there in that shack. That was the first time I had ever heard that Althea Gibson was a native South Carolinian.

Of course, she had to leave South Carolina to become a success. The good news now is that you can stay in the State and succeed. Over the weekend we lost Althea Gibson. We lost this championship athlete at the age of 76. USA TODAY has an interesting article of her success, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, marketers assault Americans' privacy every day. Businesses track everything we buy and everything we do. It seems the marketers know more about our lives than we do ourselves. It is intrusive, and Americans want the tools to fight back.

But those of us who work to protect Americans' privacy are thwarted every step of the way. The marketers oppose antispam legislation. The marketers oppose decency limits on advertising to children. And the marketers oppose legislation that would allow Americans to ``opt-out'' of the sharing of their personal information, including financial records.

The one success we have had is the Do Not Call list. The public's vociferous reaction to the court decision yesterday shows the country's desire to win refuge from the marketing onslaught. The public wants the Do Not Call registry. And the public wants the registry to become active next week. We will make sure that happens.

But we have several Johnny-Come-Latelys to our cause. When I was chairman of the Commerce Committee last Congress, we worked with the FTC to create the Do Not Call Registry. But we didn't get much help from the other side. Instead we were unfairly criticized by interest groups for jeopardizing their funding.

We fought to win $18 million for the registry in the omnibus appropriations bill last year. But the House wanted language that would prohibit using that funding absent explicit Congressional authorization. The House language could have stopped the registry. Again, it was an uphill battle, and we had few allies. But we eventually got the bad language removed, giving the FTC the funds to implement the Do Not Call Registry.

Once the FTC opened the list to registration, the response from the American public was overwhelming. By yesterday, Americans had registered more than 50 million phone numbers. South Carolinians have registered 685,393 phone numbers--486,533 through the FTC Web site, 198,855 via phone, and 5 through hearing-impaired devices. The marketers argued that Americans did not want the Do Not Call list, but the American public proved them wrong. Americans want this tool. They want the assault on their privacy to stop. Once news reports showed the Do Not

Call Registry was popular, many converted to the cause. And some of them are leading the charge today. We appreciate their support now as we try to overturn a clearly flawed court decision.

To prepare for compliance on October 1, 2003, nearly 5,000 telemarketers have purchased all or parts of the list. Therefore, telemarketers acting in good faith are ready to comply next week.

A telemarketer that ignores the Do Not Call list is subject to an $11,000 fine for each call to a phone number on the Do Not Call Registry. The law requires telemarketers to search the registry every 3 months and synchronize their call lists.

Once consumers register a number on the Do Not Call list, telemarketers are prohibited from calling the number for the purpose of selling goods and services. Consumers who receive sales calls after their number has been in the registry for three months can file a complaint on the FTC web site or call 1-888-382-1222.

The Do Not Call list will not hurt charities seeking to raise money for worthy causes. Charities may still hire professional telemarketers to seek donations. But calls during which a charity or telemarketer seeks to sell something are prohibited to phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.

This Do Not Call Registry has been a long time in coming. We are going to take the final step today. The court decision yesterday may even have given the Do Not Call Registry more publicity, encouraging even more people to register their phone numbers.

Opponents of Americans' privacy should take notice: Americans want tools and choices, such as the Do Not Call Registry, to protect their precious time with their families. They also want to protect their private medical and financial information and protect their children from indecent advertising. We will keep fighting.

Mr. President, let's thank Chairman Tim Muris of the Federal Trade Commission, who came to the Commerce Committee last year. And we put in S. 2946, the Do Not Call bill, with some $5 million that was requested. Later on, we found there were well organized holds, whereby we could not even get this bill up for consideration. Yes, we reported it favorably from the Commerce Committee, but we could not get it on the floor to pass it. And it was needed.

Chairman Muris came to me and said he needed $15 million. I talked with Chairman Gregg earlier this year, and in the omnibus bill, with the Federal Trade Commission appropriations, we increased it to $18 million. We could see the demand and see the interest and see the need. So we did just that.

It is good that my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Arizona, is on the Senate floor because the opposition was that it was not authorized. I go right to my experience for over 30 some years on the State-Justice-Commerce Committee, where we have had difficulty over the years passing, for example, an FBI authorization bill.

I remember for a period of almost 20 years we had no authorization. We worked with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to make sure their wants were taken care of. But we provided the bill; the same with respect to State Department authorization.

So I would only admonish the distinguished jurist who made this ruling about authorization that, yes, the Senator from Arizona is jointly correct with respect to the rules of the Senate but not with respect to the Constitution.

Once you receive three readings in the House and three readings in the Senate, and it is signed by the President of the United States, we have no doubt that law would take effect and this order of the court would be set aside.

However, the triggering date is the first of October, next week, and so I commend my House colleagues and those on the Senate side, and my chairman, Senator McCain, in taking this up at this particular time so we can go ahead and take the House bill.

There are many interested in separate bills, and what have you. But right to the point, time is of the essence. Fifty million Americans cannot be wrong, they are all interested in stopping the calls.

With that, let me yield, then, to the distinguished chairman, and then to Senator Dorgan, who will control the time on the floor.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, John Carl West was the smartest in our class of 1942 at The Citadel. I will never forget in the political science course COL Carl Coleman would pass around Time magazine's current accounts test. John was the only one who knew all the answers each time and he was long on common sense to go along with his brilliance.

At a later time I want to detail his contributions to our State and Nation, but the article in The State newspaper in Columbia, SC, appearing on September 21, has a pretty good summary of it. I that it be printed in the Record.

The article follows.

[From the State, Sept. 21, 2003]

Way Ahead of His Time

(By Aaron Gould Sheinin)

Hilton Head Island.--At 81, former Gov. John West is no

lion in winter, no aged warrior. He is, as he's always been,

a dove.

Battling cancer, West goes to his Hilton Head Island law

office each morning. He still wears a tie and his trademark

horn-rimmed glasses.

Nearly 33 years after South Carolinians answered his

campaign call to ``elect a good man governor,'' several

projects are under way to ensure that West's legacy endures.

That legacy will center on his progressive stands on race.

``My whole ambition and my whole thrust was to first get

the state's racial relationship in better order,'' West says

from his law office conference room, an expanse of salt-water

marsh visible beyond a wall of windows.

A biography is in the works, and, at USC, an oral history

and archive are complete. Also, a new program, called the

West Forum, will perpetuate the Kershaw County native's

interest in state government and policy.

As state senator, lieutenant governor and governor, West

was out front on improving race relations when doing so meant

you and your family got death threats from the Ku Klux Klan

leader who lived less than a mile from your home. He also was

out front on race relations in South Carolina when that meant

you did not win elections.

And yet West did.

West, who once carried a pistol for protection, helped

carry the state out of segregation. He created the state

Human Affairs Commission and appointed Jim Clyburn to be the

first black senior gubernatorial aide. He fought for better

health care for all, for increasing teacher pay and

stabilizing the education system.

West vetoed a capital punishment bill because, he said

then, ``I do not believe man has the right to take a life

that only God can create.'' For a state still escaping the

scourge of lynchings, West's actions spoke volumes to blacks,

African-American leaders say. The Legislature, however,

overrode the veto.

Later, West was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under

President Jimmy Carter, choosing the posting over more

pleasant locales.

saw enormous potential in blacks

Now, West has a new fight, against cancer. Kind and polite,

he declines to talk about his illness. But he's being treated

at MUSC in Charleston, where, he says, the Hollings Oncology

Center is a terrific asset for the state.

A self-described ``old politician,'' West is pleased to

remember the days when his beliefs were considered shocking

by some. ``In the election of 1970, I probably wouldn't have

been elected without the black vote,'' West says. ``The fact

that we had relegated a large percentage of our people to

service jobs, to limited education, limited opportunity, was

just not smart. I felt that if we could unleash that

potential, it would be a great boon for South Carolina. I

like to think I was right about that.''

For today's Democratic candidates, attracting the black

vote is necessity and norm. In West's heyday, it was ``almost

revolutionary,'' he says.

Former President Carter and West became friends when both

were governors, Carter in Georgia. Carter calls West a

trailblazer in race relations. ``He was and has always

remained way ahead of his time, not only in race relations,

but also in a deep commitment to make sure that every citizen

of South Carolina was given an opportunity for good education

and health care,'' Carter says. ``His heart was in the right

place and still is.''

west ``believed strongly in good''

In his 1971 inaugural address, West said South Carolina

must ``in the next four years eliminate from our Government

any vestige of discrimination.'' Sitting in the crowd at the

State House was newly minted state Rep. I.S. Leevy Johnson of

Columbia, one of three African Americans elected that

November to the House, the first blacks to serve since

Reconstruction. West ``changed the course of South Carolina

history'' when it came to relations between blacks and

whites, Johnson says. ``People recognized him as a person who

believed strongly in good.''

Clyburn believes he should have been in the crowd that day,

too, as the fourth black House member. But the future

congressman went to bed on election night believing he had

won by 5,000 votes, only to wake up the next morning and be

told that a counting error had been discovered. He'd lost by

5,000 votes.

When West asked him a week after the election to come to

Columbia and work for him, Clyburn was reluctant. ``I told

him,'' Clyburn remembers, ``that I didn't think it would be a

good fit. I thought my politics and his may not have been

suited for each other.'' But West ``looked at me and said

something I've never forgotten. He said, `If I had your

talent and I was black, I'd be more militant than you are.'

And so I went to work for him.''

After two years on the governor's senior staff, West

appointed Clyburn to lead the Human Affairs Commission, the

first state agency charged with fighting discrimination in

employment, housing and public accommodations. Twenty years

later, Clyburn became the state's first black congressman

since Reconstruction.

``JUST A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG''

Through the turbulent 1950s, '60s and early '70s, West was

the rare politician for whom race had not been anathema. ``I

had worked with blacks all my life,'' West says. ``I had

plowed fields with them, went through the Depression with

them. I had no hatred of blacks. I guess it was just a sense

of right and wrong.''

It was that sense that led him to cross paths with the

Klan. In the 1950s, when West was in the Senate, the doomed

segregationist mantra of ``separate but equal'' was still the

law in South Carolina.

The band at the white high school in Camden was

accomplished and decorated. The

band at the nearby black high school was not. So the white

band teacher offered to help the black band improve. He was

beaten nearly to death by the Klan, West says. When the

Kershaw County sheriff didn't seem too concerned, West

approached J.P. ``Pete'' Strom, legendary director of the

State Law Enforcement Division.

Strom's agents bugged a Klan hideout and within a week had

made arrests. When a grand jury refused to indict the Klan

leaders, West eventually worked against the Klan in a related

civil suit. ``The Ku Klux Klan threatened my life, ran my

wife off the road,'' West said. ``There were some questions

there for a while of who was going to win, between me and the

Klan.''

West's wife, Lois, also was not one to be intimidated.

``She was known as a crack shot,'' West says, emotion choking

his words as he remembers his wife's brave actions at the

time. ``She sent word to the grand dragon that if anything

happened to me, don't worry about the grand jury--she was

going to kill him.''

helped ease racial tensions

In 1966, West was elected lieutenant governor.

In 1970, he ran for governor against Albert Watson, the

state's first Republican congressman since Reconstruction.

Watson had the backing of two top Republicans--U.S. Sen.

Strom Thurmond and President Richard Nixon, who ``campaigned

harder for my opponent than my opponent did,'' West says.

Watson spoke against forced integration of schools. Days

before the vote, he rallied a group in Darlington County

upset over court-ordered busing. Soon after, a group of

whites overturned two buses of black children in what became

known as the Lamar riot. Several children were injured and

more than two dozen arrests were made.

In the 1970 election, West won nearly 54 percent of the

vote as African-Americans went to the polls in record

numbers. Just days later, Thurmond hired Tom Moss, the first

black aide to work for a Southern U.S. senator. The

segregationist Thurmond began his conversion then into a

racial moderate, West says, and ``saw the light with that

election.''

One biographer wrote ``when John West entered office,

racial tensions had never been higher. By the end of his

term, relations between blacks and whites had never been

better.''

Mr. President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to vote for Henry Floyd to be a judge on the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Judge Floyd is known throughout my State as a fine, fair, and even- handed jurist. There is no question a good judge has to possess a balanced judicial temperament. Judge Floyd showed as a State circuit court judge he is balanced. He has presided over complex class action litigation; felony criminal cases including capital murder cases; cases with difficult constitutional issues, and everything else like that. By all accounts, he has applied the law fairly, and the South Carolina Bar supports him.

This nominee also has a breadth of experience as a private practitioner, representing civil and criminal clients in all sorts of matters; he was a lieutenant in the Army; and he was a South Carolina State legislator. He obviously is well qualified.

I think our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will find it refreshing to vote on a nominee who doesn't make us quarrel over religion, or advance any political agenda, and who answers our questions. For 37 years, Senator Thurmond and I practiced bipartisan cooperation in filling South Carolina's Federal bench. I thank Senator Graham for continuing in this collegial tradition.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, in light of John McKissick's historic football accomplishments, I ask that this article from the September 11 USA Today be printed in the Record.

The article follows.

[From the USA Today, Sept. 11, 2003]

Football Coach all Alone at Brink of 500 Wins

(By Jill Lieber)

He's the winningest football coach at any level, going for

his 500th victory Friday night. He has 10 state championships

and 26 regional titles. And in 52 years at the helm of the

mighty Green Wave of Summerville High School, John McKissick

is known for something else in this quaint, historic burg,

population 27,752: as a leader of the community, the glue

that holds the town together.

``John McKissick has been a vital part of forming

connections around this town,'' says David Pugh, Summerville

High's principal. ``What makes a community successful is the

quality of life, and John has shown great leadership in that.

He has been able to connect people. He has taught them how to

share.''

McKissick, two weeks shy of his 77th birthday, has molded

3,014 teenage boys into players over the years. He has

instilled pride in tens of thousands of Summerville High

students, cheerleaders, band members, teachers and parents.

And he has provided excitement for countless more football

fans, who have turned out 10,000 strong, in their green and

gold, every Friday night in the fall for the past six

decades.

Grandfathers, fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, the next-

door neighbor's kid, even the piccolo player down the street:

Everybody here is tied to the Green Wave in some way.

Why, McKissick now is coaching the third generation of some

Summerville families. His own grandson, Joe Call, a former

Green Wave quarterback, is an assistant coach.

Truth be told, the folks in this town, nestled on a piney

ridge 25 miles northwest of Charleston, would be lost without

McKissick.

``So many leaders have come through the John McKissick

system,'' says Bo Blanton, chairman of the school board and

former Green Wave quarterback.

``Police officers. Teachers. Lawyers. Doctors. Dentists.

Legislators. Coaches. The bond has been formed over the

years, the winning tradition of the football program has

permeated through the community, all because of the

excellence of John McKissick. So many people have felt a part

of it. So many people have been inspired by it.''

At 8 p.m. Friday, at McKissick Field, on John McKissick

Way, the legendary coach will try to give Summerville yet

another treat: The Green Wave (2-0) play local rival Mount

Pleasant Wando High (1-1) in what could be McKissick's 500th

victory.

Coincidentally, McKissick beat Wando in October 1993 for

his 406th victory, which set the national high school

football record.

Berlin G. Myers Sr., Summerville mayor the past 33 years

and owner of the local lumber company, has declared this John

McKissick Week. (Several years ago, Myers actually

rescheduled Halloween because it fell on a game night.)

Joan McKissick--who wed her husband in June 1952, just two

weeks before he took the job at Summerville--has spruced up

the press box with photos of past and present Green Wave

players for the media rolling into town for the big game.

She's expecting hundreds of family and friends.

Troy Knight, the town's attorney, a former Green Wave ball

boy, manager and trainer, is a major player with the 500th

Committee. That's a group of local business people who have

brainstormed ways to commemorate McKissick's milestone.

They're throwing a party on the field after the game for

McKissick's 82 varsity players and their families, if the

team wins.

The city will come together Nov. 8 for a fundraiser:

Summerville will be establishing a John and Joan McKissick

Scholarship.

``Coach McKissick is an educator, first and foremost,''

Knight says. ``His vehicle just happens to be coaching. This

is a way for his legacy to live on forever.''

Winning admiration of peers

McKissick, a quiet, unassuming man, has not missed a game

in 52 years--631 games.

Not health, not weather, not an act of God has stopped him.

He has had only two losing seasons (1957 and 2001).

His wife has missed just three games. She's the Green

Wave's official historian and her husband's trusted

biographer, thanks to the piles of scrapbooks she has

religiously kept throughout his career. She's also the

curator of the largest collection of Green Wave artifacts,

most engulfing the playroom of their ranch house, which the

McKissicks affectionately call The Green Wave Room.

South Carolina Gamecocks coach and friend Lou Holtz is

keeping his fingers crossed that McKissick will reach 500

Friday.

``I don't know of any individual who has done more for high

school football or for the state of South Carolina than John

McKissick,'' Holtz said through his sports information

director. ``He not only has taught winning football, he has

developed winning young men. He has been so unselfish with

his time. His loyalty to Summerville and the state of South

Carolina really impresses me.''

Florida State coach Bobby Bowden (334 victories), second to

Penn State's Joe Paterno as the winningest Division I-A

football coach, also is sending good vibes to his good buddy

McKissick.

``The victories bring pride to the state of South Carolina,

especially since he is one of their own,'' Bowden said

through his school's sports information director. ``It also

brings great attention to what you can do if you just

persevere. I don't know if it can ever be broken.

``I think Coach McKissick's longevity is due to the fact

that he has his priorities in order and that football is not

his No. 1 priority. A man must have persistence and love of

the game and love of life to coach so long.''

Everything he wants right here.

McKissick's persistence and perseverance were forged from a

tough childhood.

Born in Greenwood, S.C., McKissick was the second of Harry

and Ethel's three sons. Harry owned the Pepsi and Nehi

Bottling Co.

A few months after the 1929 stock market crash, the

McKissicks returned home one night to find their house

destroyed by a fire. Within months, the bottling plant went

bankrupt. The family moved to Lake City, S.C., where

McKissick's dad opened a corner grocery that went belly up

within two years.

Life got better after his mom got a job as lunchroom

supervisor for the public schools in Williamsburg County--she

worked there 40 years--and his dad became a guard standing

shotgun on the county chain gang. But the tough times didn't

stop.

McKissick grew up in homes without toilets and running

water. He didn't wear shoes to school until the eighth grade.

And the family could afford to eat meat--fried chicken--only

on Sundays.

He was drawn to coaching because he recalled how happy his

Kingstree High school coach, Jimmy Welch, always looked. ``I

figured it must be a good profession.''

In the fall of '51, he landed a job in Clarkton, N.C.--over

the phone, sight unseen. Little did he know he'd be coaching

six-man football; it paid $2,700 a year. He called Lonnie

MacMillian, his coach at Presbyterian College and a pioneer

of the Split-T offense, for advice.

``He gave me four plays to run told me to run--them to the

right and left, so it would seem like I had eight,'' says

McKissick, whose team went 7-0. (None of those victories are

included in his 499 wins.)

In the spring of 1952, McKissick applied for the job at

Summerville. ``The superintendent, Frank Kirk, later told me

I got the job because I was the only applicant who didn't ask

how much it paid.''

McKissick coached boys and girls basketball, baseball and

track. He taught two South Carolina history classes and three

U.S. history classes. And he mowed and lined the football

field, shined the football cleats, washed the game uniforms

and taped the players' ankles, all for $3,000 a year.

``Growing up poor gave me drive,'' he says. ``I put

pressure on myself to try to achieve something in life. I had

empathy for kids who had a tough time, especially if they

were trying, and compassion for those who lacked

confidence.''

McKissick has been approached about college head coaching

jobs (The Citadel, Newberry, Presbyterian), but he has never

come close to leaving. His wife was a postal carrier for 30

years until she retired in 1986. They raised two daughters

here: Debbie and Cindy, a former Green Wave cheerleader.

``People always ask me why I didn't take another job,''

McKissick says. ``I grew up hard, not having everything I

wanted. People have different wants and needs. A lot of

people want more than what they really need.

``Working with kids has kept me young; it has allowed me to

grow and evolve. And I get so much self-satisfaction seeing

former players around town, at the filling station, the

barbershop. . . . Even as football coaches at area high

schools.

``Why would I ever want to leave Summerville? It's a

wonderful community, with wonderful fans and great support.

It's my family. I have everything I've always wanted right

here.''

I would like to discuss an issue to be voted on in the morning, a resolution of disapproval of the FCC, increasing 35 to 45 percent ownership, and, more than that, the cross-ownership at the local level.

Also, I would like to start paying for the war. I take it the Senator wants to pay for the war.

We have the poor GI down in Baghdad. We hope each day he does not get killed, and the reason is we want him to hurry back so we can give him the bill. We ain't going to pay for it, but we need a tax cut so we can get reelected next year. That is what is going on in this town.

Every time I go home, I am again embarrassed. I want to talk to that point.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. President, I admire my distinguished colleague from California. She is a fighter. She has a conscience, and she is dedicated. I am delighted to listen to her. I agree with her absolutely.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a no-no subject-- taxes. I get really worn out when I go home and hear the local folks are against taxes. I came to public service over 50 years ago when there was a conscience of paying the bill for the Government we provided. I will never forget, one of the first measures we had come before us was a veterans' bonus for the World War II veterans. I can see Julian Dusenberry, a Member from Florence, whose legs had been shot out from under him. He was a Distinguished Service Cross recipient. He raised himself up on those brass bars we had at the back of the Chamber for him, and he said: Mr. Speaker, we all are veterans, but we are all South Carolinians. South Carolina doesn't have the money, and I move to table the bill. And we killed the veterans' bonus.

It was shortly thereafter that I could see we were not providing public education in a general sense for all of our constituency. More particularly, there were just absolutely no schools for African Americans. I went to one shortly after I was elected. It was a one- square building, one floor. It was a cold November day. They had a potbellied stove in the middle, a class in one corner, a class in another corner, a class in the third corner, and a class in the fourth corner. This African American school had one teacher for the four classes. So I introduced the sales tax to pay for education. It was a 3 percent sales tax, and we finally enacted it in 1951. It was quite a struggle, but nobody has really contested that measure, nor has anyone put in a bill to repeal it.

We have to pay for the public schools. Under Governor Riley--he was Secretary of Education--we increased that from 3 to 5 percent.

When I came in as Governor of South Carolina, some 40 years ago, we had to attract industry. Everybody was looking for jobs. I am sort of an expert at looking for jobs. I traveled the highways and byways, but before I did that, I prepared myself to sell the point. I knew they were not going to invest in South Carolina, unless we had a pay-as-you- go operation. So I moved to increase taxes and got the AAA credit rating for the State of South Carolina back in 1959, before any Southern State, including the State of Virginia, had a AAA credit rating.

I address the distinguished Chair because he gave real leadership to his State of Virginia when he was Governor. He knows exactly what we are talking about. In fact, the gentleman we had in South Carolina went back up to Richmond, VA, to help in industrial expansion. So we worked together trying to develop public education, strong communities, and fiscal responsibility at the State level. But you can come up here to Washington and you can forget about it.

I saw one article the other day that was put in the Record relative to President Lyndon Baines Johnson. It said he didn't care. Oh, no, he did. He didn't give us guns and butter. He paid in 1968 and 1969 for the Vietnam War. The last time your U.S. Government balanced the budget was under President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1968-1969. We ended up in the black with a surplus. Thereafter, as chairman of the Budget Committee under President Carter I can tell you, we still had a conscience.

I will never forget that 1980 election. They cleaned out Democrats. I went to the ones who were cleaned out and said: Look, you have to give me a vote. We can't leave this year with a deficit bigger than the one we inherited from President Ford. I went to Senator Magnuson, I went to Senator Church, I went to Senator Culver, I went to Senator McGovern, I went to Senator Bayh, I went to Senator Gaylord Nelson--all defeated in 1980. I said: You have to give me one vote. They did, and we reduced that deficit.

Then, of course, when President Reagan came in with voodoo, which Vice President Bush called it, the idea is to cut your taxes and that will increase your revenue. That is absolute nonsense. We know now from voodoo 1, 2, 3, and 4 that we are in the worst trouble we have ever been. That is why I take the floor today to speak generally with respect to taxes.

All politicians are against taxes. In fact, some are so adamant against them, they run against the Government, they run against the job they are running for. But taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, said Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Let's try, Mr. President, a nation without taxes, just momentarily. Let's agree, for example, to not touch Social Security and Medicare-- they are both in surplus. In fact, everybody wants to save Social Security. If you just left it alone and quit spending the Social Security revenues on any and everything but Social Security, you would have a $1.5 trillion surplus in the Social Security trust fund, which the Greenspan Commission called for and which we passed in law, section 13-301 of the Budget Act, that we totally ignore now. So let's leave Social Security, Medicare, and Defense alone.

But let's take all the other things government does with taxpayer dollars and get rid of them so we can get rid of taxes. The Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Education would immediately be abolished. We would eliminate the FBI.

We would stop building roads or fixing the ones we have. We would do away with the hospitals receiving Federal support, eliminate the National Institutes of Health, and close all the Veterans Hospitals.

We would close the monuments and the parks, decertify the food certified by the Food and Drug Administration, decertify the drugs for the same reason, eliminate all the farm programs. When one mentions farm programs, they can get some attention in this body. That is the crowd that does not want to pay for anything, but they wiggle their way in and walk away with billions every time, every session. They always get billions, but let's do away with the farm programs, eliminate the development programs, forget about clean air, clean water, just close the Environmental Protection Administration; cancel NOAA, cancel NASA, cancel the housing programs, close the airports because they are supported by Federal taxes.

In fact, just close the prisons. Tell all the prisoners, sooey, pig, just get out. Just shoo, get out. Get rid of the President, get rid of the Congress, the Cabinet, the courts. Just get rid of the government.

I talked to a group in South Carolina and finally got their attention that we are lucky to be born in America where there is a government supported by the taxes that helps provide our opportunities. For example, someone born in Zambia can expect to live to only 37 years of age; born in Swaziland, 38 years; born in Rwanda, 39 years; Mozambique, 40 years; Niger, where someone found yellow cake, he lives to be 41 years of age. If I had been born in Niger, I would have been dead already for 40 years. I do not want to give that idea out to a lot of people listening to what I am talking about.

Eighty percent of those born today in rural India have worms. Eighty- five percent will go hungry and 95 percent in rural India will drink dirty water all of their lives. One born today in Botswana has a one in three chance of getting AIDS, and someone born in Mali instead of the United States has only a 10-percent chance of completing the first grade. One born in Brazil has a 40-percent chance of dropping out of school by the sixth grade. A girl born in Pakistan has less than a 10- percent chance of attending high school. In Senegal one has only a 50- percent chance of finding a job.

In Sri Lanka, one can expect to earn only 40 cents an hour; Haiti, 30 cents an hour; Bangladesh, 20 cents an hour. So one born in many countries instead of

the good old USA, they cannot vote, they have no labor rights, they cannot even assemble.

We all like to think, wait a minute now, we all came up by our own bootstraps; that we did it on our own. No. If one is born in America, the government has furnished the boot. The government in America has furnished the law and order, educational opportunity, a market economy, clean air, clean water, civil rights, labor rights, a free society. Born in America, as Thomas Wolfe wrote, each has his own shining golden opportunity.

Because of this land of opportunity, supported by taxes, Asians come hidden in containers on ships, and Mexican immigrants risk their lives every day to get here.

Some will say we do not need the taxes. What we need is spending cuts. I say to my dear colleagues, spending cuts will not do it. I think that is the thrust of the point that I hope sobers this crowd up. It worries them, as it worries me. Even if Congress eliminated every nondefense Government program, it would not get us out of the deficit hole.

Every American should refer to page 8 of the Congressional Budget Office Budget and Economic Outlook Update. I ask unanimous consent that page 8 and page 10 be printed in the Record.

If we turn to page 8, we will see that nondefense outlays for this particular fiscal year that we are in is 419 billion bucks. But if we turn to page 10, we will see that the deficit for this fiscal year is $640 billion. So do not just cut. Eliminate all nondefense programs, eliminate all those departments, prisons, the FBI, the Congress, the courts, the President. Just eliminate everything. Get rid of it. And we still have a $200 billion dollar or more deficit.

So do not come around in these debates and give these nice, pleasant, Chamber of Commerce, rotary club

talks that what we really need in Washington is to cut down the spending, cut down the size of Government, Government is just too big.

Well, by gosh, come on up here and just cut it out, and there is still a deficit. So we have over a $200 billion deficit right there and then, and now comes President Bush who says he needs $87 billion--like we have some money. We are just nothing but wallowing around in the red using credit cards, and so he asks that the Congress provide $87 billion more for Iraq. Of course, that is all on the credit card further, a bigger deficit. It is really a sin and a shame.

What we are saying is, me and my generation and most of the generations of the Members that I see and who can speak this evening say we ain't going to pay the bill. We do not want that GI in downtown Baghdad to get killed. We want him to rush back to pay the bill because we ain't going to pay for it. We need a tax cut so next year we can get reelected. That is the message of everybody running around with flags on their lapels showing how they support the troops.

Well, come on. Support the troops? When are they going to cosponsor my value-added tax? I tried it with the value-added tax after we failed with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. We worked with President Reagan in a bipartisan fashion and we did a good job momentarily for 2 or 3 years, but then instead of using Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to cut back some $35 billion in spending each and every year, we were using it as a cover to increase spending $35 billion each and every year.

So I said give me a divorce from that. I don't want my name connected with it. I got hold of Dick Darman, when President George Herbert Walker Bush, the senior Bush, took office. Darman was the OMB Director.

I said: Dick, we ought to have a value-added tax.

They discussed it. I got a little note from Papa Bush to the effect that he might consider that but not right now, his first year in office.

We tried and tried until we got to President Clinton. Then we had a showdown on how to act responsibly. Without a single Republican vote in the House, without a single Republican vote in the Senate, President Clinton and this Democratic Congress passed an increase in taxes as well as spending cuts. We cut some $350 billion to $400 billion in spending, but we increased taxes on the high and wealthy. We increased the income taxes. We increased gasoline taxes. We increased Social Security taxes.

I will never forget the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Phil Gramm, saying they were going to be hunting down the Democrats in the streets and shooting us like dogs when they found out we were, by gosh, going to increase taxes on Social Security.

But you see now that rich crowd comes in, and what they want and all they ask for is: Give me an income tax cut. Give me a retroactive one, nunc pro tunc. They sneaked in all kinds of things for Kenny Boy Lay. It came to $250 million. I have never seen such things.

Then they wanted to get rid of the taxes on dividends. I want the party of Lincoln to remember that Abraham Lincoln put a tax on dividends to pay for the Civil War. He was willing to pay for the war. We have paid for every war, until now.

Let me be brief here because I can see the hour is getting late. Rather than going into this very interesting article by the former Secretary of Labor, Dr. Robert B. Reich, printed in USA Today entitled ``Tax wealthy to pay for Iraq war,'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Secretary Reich, he wants to tax the 1 percent most wealthy. He says that will get us $87 billion.

I am for doing away with all of President Bush's tax cuts so we can get jobs and the economy going, as we did under President Clinton. When we passed that, back in 1993, we had 8 years of the finest economic growth that you have ever seen. We put the Government back in the black, and we did it by increasing taxes. Now they say to put it back in the black, give the rich a tax cut.

Mr. President, let me address the particular resolution for disapproval of the Federal Communication Commission's order relative to not only increasing media ownership from 35 percent to 45 percent but, more particularly, also eliminating cross-ownership rules so you can own everything. You can own the cable, you can own the television, you can own the newspaper, you can own the satellite and many stations and what have you, and, in the main, the networks own them.

I hasten to add that I hold no brief for or difference with any of the 10 particular Federal Communications Commission Chairmen with whom I have served. I have served, it will be almost 37 years, beginning with Rosel Hyde back in 1966, to Dean Burch, to Richard Wiley, to Charles Ferris, to Mark Fowler, to Dennis Patrick, to Alfred Sikes, to James Quello, to Reed Hundt, to William Kennard. Ask any one of them.

I got on the Commerce Committee and on the Subcommittee on Communications, when John Pastore of Rhode Island was the chairman of the subcommittee. For over 20-some years I have served as either chairman of that subcommittee or ranking member.

Right to the point, I want to try to agree with our distinguished FCC chairman, Michael Powell. I tried my best to sit down and talk with him. I realized from the get-go that he was off on a toot because he was asked, just as he was coming into office, about the public interest. He was asked, at his maiden news conference, for his definition of the public interest.

Powell joked:

I have no idea. The term can mean whatever people want it

to mean. It's an empty vessel in which people pour in

whatever their preconceived views or biases are.

I could see we would have trouble because here is a regulatory body to carry out the rules and regulations and the intent of the Congress to regulate, and here he is coming in and saying: No, no--market forces. The public interest is just something fanciful. It is an ``empty vessel,'' to use his characterization.

Free market analysis does not apply to the broadcasting industry because of spectrum scarcity; that is, the primary local broadcast is the primary source for local news, weather, public affairs programming, and emergency information.

When we had the 1996 act, it actually was a bill that I had worked on 2 years as chairman of the Commerce Committee. I can see George Mitchell, the majority leader, trying to get it up because we passed it out of the committee unanimously. We worked in a bipartisan fashion. He could not get it up. In desperation and frustration, he said: The first thing I am going to do when we convene next year is call up the Telecommunications Act.

Of course we Democrats were beat. The Republicans took over. Senator Larry Pressler, the distinguished Senator, took over as chairman of the Commerce Committee and he put in the Republican version. But in conference--you can ask Tom Bliley, who was the Republican chairman in the House and I was working on the Senate side--that we more or less reconciled it to a bill that we had worked on literally for 4 years to promote competition.

We realized we were into a dynamic environment, changing each day. We worded the language in there so it would not only deregulate but reregulate.

Of course the distinguished Chairman Powell went along with every gimmick in the book, such as it didn't refer to data, and various other things that my colleague over on the House side, Billy Tauzin, put in, but we held up.

Finally, the other day they put out an order relative to the ownership cap and the cross-ownership. Let's take 1 second with respect to the ownership cap.

What happens is that we were really trying to hold it to the 25 percent. There were some in violation, in excess of that. They wanted to be able to reconcile themselves and come into conformance with the law itself and the rule. We got down to the base wire and everything else of that kind. There was not any question in our own minds that the 25 percent was enough ownership, because we could see how the radio was going at the particular time.

We all know how radio has gone, where they can own 1,200 stations. When you get that kind of ownership, they can't just give numbers, you have to get control.

I can't get any kind of local thing. It is all foreign. In fact, you are liable to get the weather out of India at your local hometown station. They are reading from some kind of report.

We had a system that was actually checks and balances at the Federal Government level. In other words, in broadcasting, the content was provided by producers. The networks served as wholesalers and the local affiliates as distributors. Now the networks have come in and gotten their own programming. They have done away with the financial syndication rule. They have gotten into their own programming in vertical integration.

The networks have been allowed to buy up stations, and they are buying them up like gangbusters. What we are going to have here is almost one branch of government trying to preserve localism in the public interest. It is not going to happen if this continues. It just threw everyone into turmoil.

There isn't any question. On the House side, even though Chairman Tauzin opposed it vigorously, a bipartisan group put in the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill that the 45-percent rule of the Federal Communications Commission be reversed and go back to 35 percent. We considered the same thing over at the markup of the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, and we included that same provision word for word.

I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``How Michael Powell Could Have the Last Laugh,'' in this week's Business Week, which goes right to the cross-ownership, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we had the support of the National Association of Broadcasters with respect to the overall check of the 45 percent being turned back to the 35 percent and not go up to 45 percent. However, the station owners realized that money could control and they could be in a position where cross-ownership would be done away with. There is a lot of big money with these oligopolies coming in and buying up their stations, which would position them monetarily and enhance the value of their station.

We don't have the support of the National Association of Broadcasters on that cross-ownership. But the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, has it in as a resolution of disapproval. I am a cosponsor. Senator Lott and many of our Republican colleagues are also cosponsors. We discharged that one out from the Commerce Committee.

The Stevens-Hollings authorization bill on the return of 45 percent from the 35 percent has been reported and is pending at the desk for consideration. I think the appropriations process is the only way that we can proceed.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from USA Today from this morning entitled ``FCC's Powell keeps chin up as regulation storm rages.''

Mr. President, you can see, as they say in this article, that Chairman Powell is defiant. He says that it would spawn chaos. It wasn't chaos. We had some competition. In fact, Senator McCain and I are trying to reregulate the radio stations, bring them back and do away with the ownership and make them divest to a certain number. But he says the commissioners now ought to have the

views of the public. That is very interesting.

Mr. President, now Michael Powell is going to have a task force designed to prevent any media company from having excess power over competition or viewpoints.

He does that after two of the commissioners begged for public hearings. They literally begged. They were told they did not have money enough, and they could only hold one hearing. That hearing was held in Richmond.

From their own particular little budget, they had 13 hearings. Now a firestorm has erupted. You not only have the National Rifle Association and consumer groups, but you have the people of authority and respect such as Walter Cronkite and Barry Diller. You can go right on down the list all saying this is the worst thing that could possibly happen.

The interesting thing is that Commissioner Powell says they have ``produced a balanced structural rule faithful to the directors of Congress.'' Total, total applesauce--applesauce and baloney. I can tell you that we begged and we coached. I thought maybe it was a personality difference.

I get along with his father, Secretary Powell. In fact, he and I received honorary degrees at Tuskeegee together. He calls me Dr. Hollings. I call him Dr. Powell. I have provided him every red cent he has ever wanted for State Department appropriations as Secretary of State. I have that particular appropriations.

But Michael Powell is a different character entirely. He is very competent, very smart, and very intelligent, but not a regulator. He just believes that the public interest is an empty vessel and the market forces should control. When he says ``faithful to the directors of Congress,'' that is exactly what he has not been. He has been totally unfaithful. We begged him to hold up the order.

This particular reference in the order itself shows that he thinks they need big hearings on localism. Why didn't he hold up the order before he had the task force, before he had the hearings? The task force will make legislative recommendations to Congress to strengthen localism. We fought like tigers to try to get him to listen, and he just absolutely would not listen.

Mr. President, quoting from this morning's Wall Street Journal:

Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General

Electric Co. and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach

more than 50 percent of the prime-time television audience

through their combined broadcast and cable outlets. The total

rises to 80 percent, if you include the parents of newer

networks--such as News Corp.'s FOX and AOL, Time-Warner,

Inc.'s WB--and NBC's pending acquisition of Vivendi Universal

SA's cable assets, estimates Tom Wolzien, an analyst at

Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old

programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr.

Wolzien, a former executive of NBC. Of the top 25 cable

channels, 20 are now owned by 1 of the big 5 media companies.

They own each other. You talk to Chairman Powell, and he says, Look, cable is going to be taken over and there won't be any free broadcast. The free broadcaster is the one who owns the cable. He is totally off base. He just will not regulate. An order for localism is a sham and a farce. The American people ought to understand it and they ought to understand why we do not have the support of the National Association of Broadcasters. They want to enhance the value of their individual stations. They see if you can get the cross-ownership, the value of their station locally. One of the big oligarchies will give an inordinate price and they can go to Virginia Beach, the sun, take it easy, and will not have to worry.

I appreciate the indulgence of the Senate at this late hour. I only ask that you give close attention to the bipartisan Dorgan-Lott resolution, that we disapprove it, and put us back to where we were before they started a feeding frenzy, according to all the stockbrokers in the market in New York, ready to buy up all the rest of the stations as soon as it becomes effective. It has been stayed by the court. Rather than causing chaos, it will bring us back and maybe we can find out from the task force of localism, of Chairman Powell, what really needs to be done, what the public interest is.

I yield the floor.